This is kind of humorous in a right-wing media interviewing Bill Clinton. Kind of humorous, too, that Clinton is giving political advice to the Republicans :D You'd think he'd be saving his best for Hillary's next campaign.

Seems he's better at running a charity organization than he was at running a Presidency.

See another interesting interview, bet that half those viewing do not finish, and that only a few who do, would have printable opinion. Many touchy subjects covered hitting very close to truth. Network shows bias but tends to push accuracy.
Andrea Mitchell / Rachel Maddow interview 22 Sept 09
LOCATION: Fixing the action plan in Afghanistan – AOL VIDEOhttp://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/...tan/3685397280

SEMPER FI

09-22-2009, 11:14 PM

ALPHA-OMEGA

PS: Slick Willy, best Republican President since Tricky Dicky. Gave the Republican rank and file virtually everything they could hope for besides making it palatable for the DEM'S. Really infuriated the GOP Leadership. I took the wind out of their sails for years and probable RESULTED in the Bush meltdown.

Love this site. You need more of us recent republican turncoats here. We are the GOP's worst nightmare and will take on anything using inside trader knowledge.

SEMPER FI

09-23-2009, 10:57 AM

BonMallari

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALPHA-OMEGA

PS: Slick Willy, best Republican President since Tricky Dicky. Gave the Republican rank and file virtually everything they could hope for besides making it palatable for the DEM'S. Really infuriated the GOP Leadership. I took the wind out of their sails for years and probable RESULTED in the Bush meltdown.

Love this site. You need more of us recent republican turncoats here. We are the GOP's worst nightmare and will take on anything using inside trader knowledge.

SEMPER FI

AO , you arent a turncoat, you were probably more of a RINO ( republican in name only) and the republicans worst nightmare is real conservatives, not the moderate John McCain types that call themselves republicans when its convenient for their agendas. Good for you that you finally found your political identity. You only become a turncoat when you turn on the one thing that really matters and that is your country...

09-23-2009, 11:23 AM

YardleyLabs

Republicans have been successful in winning elections when they realize that Republicans are Republicans on key issues even if they are so-called RINO's or member of the RRW (rabid right wing). The minute you start yelling at each other and stop listening and compromising, your chances to win elections evaporate except if the other side decides to fight even harder to lose. Democrats have often had to relearn the same lesson. A successful Democratic party has room for more conservative blue dog democrats, right to lifers such as Bob Casey, old time liberals like Charlie Rangel, and the firebrands of the left and center.

The rules of elections are simple: the party with the bigger tent wins and the party that allows its more extreme elements to rule loses. For all the complaints about Obama on this forum, the reality is that he won because he was closer to the center than McCain at the time of the election and McCain was closer to the center than other contenders such as Huckabee, Romney, etc. If Republicans want to take advantage of Obama's problems to improve their position significantly, they had better figure out how to welcome all those RINO's back into the tent and find some leaders among their more moderate members.

09-23-2009, 11:47 AM

BonMallari

Quote:

Originally Posted by YardleyLabs

Republicans have been successful in winning elections when they realize that Republicans are Republicans on key issues even if they are so-called RINO's or member of the RRW (rabid right wing). The minute you start yelling at each other and stop listening and compromising, your chances to win elections evaporate except if the other side decides to fight even harder to lose. Democrats have often had to relearn the same lesson. A successful Democratic party has room for more conservative blue dog democrats, right to lifers such as Bob Casey, old time liberals like Charlie Rangel, and the firebrands of the left and center.

The rules of elections are simple: the party with the bigger tent wins and the party that allows its more extreme elements to rule loses. For all the complaints about Obama on this forum, the reality is that he won because he was closer to the center than McCain at the time of the election and McCain was closer to the center than other contenders such as Huckabee, Romney, etc. If Republicans want to take advantage of Obama's problems to improve their position significantly, they had better figure out how to welcome all those RINO's back into the tent and find some leaders among their more moderate members.

Jeff , even though its a moot point, I would have to respectfully disagree with you about BHO being closer to the center. your party did a masterful job of energizing your party and getting them to vote.
The republican party was and still is in disarray because they let themselves believe that a moderate could win a national election.They dont need to have a far right wing candidate, just a candidate that caters to the hearts and souls of conservatives and can energize people to get out and vote instead of sitting on the sidelines and complaining

09-23-2009, 12:08 PM

YardleyLabs

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonMallari

Jeff , even though its a moot point, I would have to respectfully disagree with you about BHO being closer to the center. your party did a masterful job of energizing your party and getting them to vote.
The republican party was and still is in disarray because they let themselves believe that a moderate could win a national election.They dont need to have a far right wing candidate, just a candidate that caters to the hearts and souls of conservatives and can energize people to get out and vote instead of sitting on the sidelines and complaining

With only 63% turnout in 2008, it would be fair to say that all Presidential elections in America are effectively decided by those who fail to vote. Polls suggest that, if turnout were 100%, the voting results would shift strongly toward Democrats since the lowest turnouts are among those professing support for Democratic candidates and Democratic positions. There are two ways to stimulate turnout. The first is to run a candidate that elicits strong emotional support. as Obama did in 2008 and McCain failed to do. The second is to field a candidate who elicits strong, emotional opposition. Once again, Obama succeeded in this category and stimulated higher turnout among conservatives who hated him. The higher turnout in 2008 included more liberals and more conservatives.

Realistically, however, Obama's victory was not produced by his strongest supporters. They voted for the Democratic candidate in 2004 but Bush still won. Obama's victory came from the votes of independents who gave their votes to Bush in 2004 but to Obama in 2008. Those independents are the source of victory and will not be won by a candidate who does not appeal to their more moderate positions.

09-23-2009, 12:59 PM

BonMallari

Quote:

Originally Posted by YardleyLabs

With only 63% turnout in 2008, it would be fair to say that all Presidential elections in America are effectively decided by those who fail to vote. Polls suggest that, if turnout were 100%, the voting results would shift strongly toward Democrats since the lowest turnouts are among those professing support for Democratic candidates and Democratic positions. There are two ways to stimulate turnout. The first is to run a candidate that elicits strong emotional support. as Obama did in 2008 and McCain failed to do. The second is to field a candidate who elicits strong, emotional opposition. Once again, Obama succeeded in this category and stimulated higher turnout among conservatives who hated him. The higher turnout in 2008 included more liberals and more conservatives.

Realistically, however, Obama's victory was not produced by his strongest supporters. They voted for the Democratic candidate in 2004 but Bush still won. Obama's victory came from the votes of independents who gave their votes to Bush in 2004 but to Obama in 2008. Those independents are the source of victory and will not be won by a candidate who does not appeal to their more moderate positions.

now there is something I can agree with you about...:)

09-23-2009, 01:16 PM

Gerry Clinchy

Quote:

For all the complaints about Obama on this forum, the reality is that he won because he was closer to the center than McCain at the time of the election

I might correct that to read: ... he won because he purported himself to be closer to the center than McCain.

Many of his individual statements, even during the campaign, when he got to specifics on occasion, would have indicated otherwise.

Quote:

The first is to run a candidate that elicits strong emotional support. as Obama did in 2008 and McCain failed to do.

That was surely true in 2008.

Quote:

Obama's victory came from the votes of independents who gave their votes to Bush in 2004 but to Obama in 2008. Those independents are the source of victory and will not be won by a candidate who does not appeal to their more moderate positions.

Absolutely the independents are the important factor for the winner. I don't think McCain couldn't appeal to moderate positions. He lacked the "emotional" quality that O brought with him. I think it's always a bit easier to bash the party in power & promise to do better than they have done. And even easier when the economy is going down from a peak.